Bill Cosby sentenced - 3-10 years in state prison

[Falsedawn]

Not really..

He admitted to drugging Constand. He admitted to having sexual intercourse, in detail, with Constand. She claims she's a lesbian and it was not consensual. She reported the crime within a year of it taking place and he quickly settled.

Constand's credibility was the determining factor. The jury deemed Constand credible based on her testimony. I accept the jury's decision, you don't.

By continuing to not address my point, you acknowledge explicitly that it's unable to be answered by yourself. That's your problem, not mine.

Later homes.

 

[Rational Poster]

By continuing to not address my point, you acknowledge explicitly that it's unable to be answered by yourself. That's your problem, not mine.

Later homes.

Witness testimony is evidence and is considered credible evidence if the jury determines that the witness is credible.

Constand's and Cosby's testimony were deemed enough to convict one charge of sexual assault by a jury of our peers.

I responded directly to your point.

 

[RockstarChris]

is it federal pound me in the ass prison?

 

[Falsedawn]

Witness testimony is evidence credible evidence if the jury determines that the witness is credible.

I responded directly to your point.

So a witness doesn't have credibility independent of the presence of a jury?

If you understood what I was asking, you wouldn't make an assertion like that as it's wholly unrelated to the similarities between the cases of Cosby and Kavanaugh.

Unless you're truly stating that a witness only becomes credible in the face of a jury, which preempts the jury anyway since we shouldn't be convening juries for accusations that lack credibility to begin with. That's pretty full retard.

 

[G-19]

I was being sarcastic with the other post...

I’ve been shit at detecting sarcasm lately.

 

[curryjunkie]

Too lenient. Lifetime jail sentence woulda been more appropriate IMO.

Do they serve jello in prison?.. it would be apropos as well...

Money talks,if he was a no name with no cash he may have got double, we all know he did more and deserves 20 years

 

[Rational Poster]

So a witness doesn't have credibility independent of the presence of a jury?

If you understood what I was asking, you wouldn't make an assertion like that as it's wholly unrelated to the similarities between the cases of Cosby and Kavanaugh.

Unless you're truly stating that a witness only becomes credible in the face of a jury, which preempts the jury anyway since we shouldn't be convening juries for accusations that lack credibility to begin with. That's pretty full retard.

It is precisely the role of a jury to determine the credibility of an accusation based on the testimony and evidence provided by the defense and prosecution.

 

[Falsedawn]

It is precisely the role of a jury to determine the credibility of an accusation based on the testimony and evidence provided by the defense and prosecution.

Then why did Cosby get a trial in the first place? Because in the absence of physical evidence, an accusation that implicitly lacks credibility shouldn't even be taken to trial to begin with. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either we trust the accuser to be earnest and let the jury decide, or we call hearsay hearsay and move on.

That's the whole fucking point. Now, wonder why Kavanaugh hasn't seen a jury and get back to me. Otherwise, you just like Kangaroo Courts and there's nothing more to go over here.

 

[2arctanx]

his entire legacy is now ruined. he will now forever be known as a rapist. that is a sentence worse than death.

 

[HARRISON_3]

Did he lose his medical license?

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

Bill Cosby's comedy was really funny. I don't think he raped anyone. He just drugged them, then let them do things to him.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

I hope he serves a few years and really gets a full sense of the impact that his creepy younger self has brought to his reputation. I don't want to see him die in prison.

 

[Shoemaker]

Agreed..

But he might shrivel in prison fast at his age..

He might only last a year or two.

That potential 3 year release date might be enough to live for and fight to. If it was a minimum of 10 I figure he’d probably just give up. Kind of weird how the body will respond to your will (or lack of one).


Good riddance to Cosby. It’s really unfortunate that it happened but we definitely can’t turn a blind eye just because the offender is a beloved celebrity. This all played out in a court of law, no grey area. He’s guilty.

#ByeCosby

 

[ElKarlo]

Imagine if he were caught in the 60s? He was the first black costar on a TV show. He could've set things back drastically for blacks.

 

[Shoemaker]

3 is a lot, but in Kavanaugh's case it's one accusation of attempted rape (bad, but not the same thing as rape), one accusation of exposing himself and one new one that I haven't read about yet.

Tangent, but I always thought it was weird that attempted crimes were punished different than accomplished crimes. I understand that we punish people based on actual damage done, not theoretical. The first is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt and potential damage is just potential; it makes practical sense.

But it still feels really weird that we reward incompetence. If a guy takes a shot at me but he can’t aim for shit, to hell with a reduced sentence. Cut him into little pieces and mash him into dog food. That’s my motto.

 

[Soul Crusher]

Now convict the white rapists!

Progress....

 

[Rational Poster]

Then why did Cosby get a trial in the first place? Because in the absence of physical evidence, an accusation that implicitly lacks credibility shouldn't even be taken to trial to begin with. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either we trust the accuser to be earnest and let the jury decide, or we call hearsay hearsay and move on.

That's the whole fucking point. Now, wonder why Kavanaugh hasn't seen a jury and get back to me. Otherwise, you just like Kangaroo Courts and there's nothing more to go over here.

You don't need physical evidence or direct evidence to press charges or have a trial. Stop making pretend you need a picture of his dick in her with a bottle of ludes in his hand in order to even press charges. There is a literal mountain of circumstantial evidence and witness testimony surrounding this case.

Circumstantial evidence and witness testimony are also enough to convict.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The dude at his fan rally comparing him to Jesus was pretty funny

 

[Falsedawn]

You don't need physical evidence or direct evidence to press charges or have a trial. Stop making pretend you need a picture of his dick in her with a bottle of ludes in his hand in order to even press charges. There is a literal mountain of circumstantial evidence and witness testimony surrounding this case.

Circumstantial evidence and witness testimony are also enough to convict.

Good thing I never said that you need "a picture of his dick in her with a bottle of ludes" to have a trial. You can't even keep on topic, much less address my point with any kind of rational thought. It's sad that you have to paint me as being in Cosby's corner to even address the issues in relying strictly on accusations, that's a character flaw on your part tbh.

So going by the Rational Poster Metric™
-ALL accusations (however frivolous) should be taken to trial, since it's solely the purview of the jury to establish an accuser's credibility
-As an accuser has no credibility independent of the jury, material concerns are nil (So basically, it's not up to the evidence, it's what you can convince the jury of in spite of it)
-As material concerns are nil, any accuser established as credible by the jury is the golden standard by which the case is judged (False accusations be damned)

Sounds a whole lot like kangaroo courts to me, but i'm just thinking far beyond Cosby's case to the greater ramifications on our legal system. Funny how that's totally lost on you.

 

[Rational Poster]

Good thing I never said that you need "a picture of his dick in her with a bottle of ludes" to have a trial. You can't even keep on topic, much less address my point with any kind of rational thought. It's sad that you have to paint me as being in Cosby's corner to even address the issues in relying strictly on accusations, that's a character flaw on your part tbh.

So going by the Rational Poster Metric™
-ALL accusations (however frivolous) should be taken to trial, since it's solely the purview of the jury to establish an accuser's credibility
-As an accuser has no credibility independent of the jury, material concerns are nil (So basically, it's not up to the evidence, it's what you can convince the jury of in spite of it)
-As material concerns are nil, any accuser established as credible by the jury is the golden standard by which the case is judged (False accusations be damned)

Sounds a whole lot like kangaroo courts to me, but i'm just thinking far beyond Cosby's case to the greater ramifications on our legal system. Funny how that's totally lost on you.

Good to see that even left wing dorks in this forum can't handle a bit of hyperbole in their discussion.. anyway... I was merely pointing out that your insistence that a lack of direct evidence means there can be no trial, which is clearly not the case, ever. I know you didn't say that, but you are strongly implying that we can't have a trial without direct evidence.

The accusations that were against Cosby were not frivolous. All accusations should be taken seriously and examined individually, and then law enforcement can choose to press charges based on the available evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.

No witness or evidence has any credibility till it's brought to trial and examined by the jury and other experts in court. In Cosby's case the jury determined the witness testimony to be credible and the circumstantial evidence sufficient.

That's the basic function of a court. To handle a he said she said dispute before a jury of your peers. They determined that the accusation was not false.